"As Allah wills." He is doubtlessly enjoying his 72 virgins and innumerable pearl-like little boys in Paradise, although unlike his more mature fellow "martyrs" he's probably just trying to play soccer with them.

Please. They can't "afford" a funeral because of the ridiculous requirements of their grotesque, death-oriented culture -- a culture which repeatedly shows on television the triumphant video of little girl picking up bombs and promising to follow her mother into martyrdom, which straps play bombs to babies for photo ops, which uses children as human shields for murder operations, which celebrates as one of its leading ladies a monstrous mother who boasts of the suicide bombings committed by her sons, smug in her certainty of Paradise because they murdered Jews in the name of Allah as they died. Don't even begin to tell me that this culture values its children as anything but dead bodies. There's simply too much evidence right in front of you to argue otherwise.

Can't afford it? One wonders where the millions and millions of aid dollars paid yearly to these Arabs have gone. Oh, that's right -- to guns, rockets, bombs . . .

But I digress. Of course it's the Joooooz! Do I get a cookie?

And Allah knows best!

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/845995.html

Apparently the Jews have forced Arabs into a firestorm of murder against their own female family members, as this report of the ninth (ninth!) victim of "honor-killing" in a single family indicates. Strangely enough, the few surviving women who saw the writing on the wall went not to their imams but to -- to -- the Jews! -- to stop the slaughter. Perhaps they know something about their noble culture and their peaceful religion we don't?

Anyone around in 1987 should have seen how this was going to come out. Tawana Brawley's lies about a gang rape by white men destroyed the lives of the accused, while she and her mother fled with $300,000 in a donated legal fund after her story unraveled. (Interestingly, Tawana changed her name to 'Maryam Mohammed' some years later, presumably thinking that conversion to Islam would buy back some cred. She has never paid legal damages to the people she falsely accused.)

The stripper here might have envisioned the same kind of payday. Homies beat her up, take her money, make her sad? Rich white boys! Rape! Yahtzee! The first clue something was going wrong should have been the noticeable absence of the usual crowd of race grievance professionals, even while the outraged cries of wealthy white "feminists" reached their peak. Evidence and its obvious inferences apparently can't stop the trembling chins and frantic blogging of the latter, but the professionals know when something smells to high heaven.

Nifong should be disbarred. The stripper should, in fact, be put in jail, unless she can present convincing proof that she is mentally ill and cannot tell the truth from falsehood. In the latter case, she should be remanded to a locked mental hospital until she "recovers." That would be justice. Rich white boys -- like all of us -- deserve it too.

How will future rape "survivors" (love that term -- if she didn't survive, she'd be a murder victim) be further injured by this circus of a case? We're not a Muslim country, where under Islamic law rape victims are whipped, stoned and hanged if they fail to produce four male Muslim spectators who are willing to testify. That's being further victimized. Not some vague handwringing fear that women won't be instantly believed without question.

The police and health workers I know and have heard of are all keenly aware of the reality of rape and the need to support the victim, as well as of the responsibility to conduct a thorough investigation. In fact, the woman at the core of the Duke case almost certainly benefitted from that training and those procedures, though in the end they unraveled her lies.

Though these young men were well-Tawana'd, the furious blogging on the case did bring to light the disturbing attitudes of many of the "feminist" bloggers. If feminism is, as I believe Katha Pollitt put it, merely "the belief that women are people," how can one excuse the instantaneous demand that the accuser be believed without question, despite all evidence to the contrary? If women are people, then some of them are going to lie -- yes, even about rape. The system we have, improvable as it might be, is designed to determine the truth. It worked in this case.

Reflexively believing someone's story simply because they are one of a class of "victims" du jour is not a sign of moral elevation. It does not prove your righteousness or "tolerance." It is a sign of moral dishonesty (there is only one kind of "victimization"), intellectual laziness (who cares about the facts), and a keen interest in self-congratulation.

While your appeal to sympathy is noted, Anonymous, it remains unconvincing from either a logical or even realistic basis.